Talkin' Scorsese: Mean Streets

"Honourable men go with honourable men."

After crafting two very different, distinct yet ultimately fairly substandard films, it’s safe to say that Martin Scorsese wasn’t exactly on anyone’s radar as 1973 arrived. That proved to be a grave miscalculation as in October of that year he arrived in the scene with his first true masterpiece. ‘Mean Streets’ proved to be energetic, powerful and deeply personal.

Charlie (Harvey Keitel) is a young Italian-American man who is trying to move up in the local New York Mafia but is hampered by his feeling of responsibility towards his reckless younger friend Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro), a small-time gambler who owes money to many loan sharks. This film chronicles their efforts to navigate the dangerous world they inhabit and try to satisfy their raging ambition.

Like all of Scorsese’s great movies, ‘Mean Streets’ is so much deeper and more complex than it would suggest, transcending the limitations of its genre and becoming something much more profound. ‘Taxi Driver’ is more than just a thriller, ‘Raging Bull’ is not simply a sports movie and ‘Mean Streets’ is far from another gangster flick. It’s not about gangsters, it’s about the state of sin and the concept of guilt and the effects of growing up in a gangster environment.

These themes are shown perfectly by the films two main characters. As Charlie Keitel plays a man with a pathological guilt complex, one who continues to carry out acts of violence only to beg and pray for forgiveness. In one famous shot he holds his hand above a candle in the alter and tries to keep it their despite the obvious pain, almost as if he is trying to prepare himself for the fires of hell. But despite this he never quite forces himself to quit the business.

His friend Johnny Boy on the other hand is in many ways the complete opposite. Where Charlie represses his anger so it haunts him internally, Johnny releases it regularly much to the inconvenience of everyone around him, especially Charlie. He struts through life with what could be mistaken for no sense of self preservation, he shoots out street light when he’s bored, borrows money from loan sharks and picks fight with people over insults he doesn’t even understand. He is violent and uncontrollable but one has to wonder, as Scorsese subtly asks it throughout the picture, is he just a product of the world around him?

It’s difficult not to answer yes, because that world is so thoroughly fleshed out by Scorsese and brought to life with such brilliance. From the first shot there’s a sense of imminent danger, frustration, pent up anger as if the whole situation might suddenly explode. I know of no other director who can blend grittiness with style as brilliantly as Scorsese and ‘Mean Streets’ is a prime example of that. Just one example is that the real world is filmed in ordinary colours but the bars and hideouts are lit in blood red, bathed in violence, anger and danger. The varying speeds, altered angles and pitch perfect use of music give the film such a sense of vibrancy and energy.

You would think that balancing a study of an environment with two character studies would be impossible but think again. Both Johnny and Charlie are performed so perfectly by De Niro and Keitel that choosing between them is near impossible. For one the prime motive is self-loathing and for the other, self-destruction. One believes solely in his religion and cannot do anything in life without being a sinner. Charlie craves redemption yet has no idea how to obtain it, so for now all he can do is go on surviving the only way he knows how. Johnny possesses an over romanticised view of criminals and seems to think he’s in a gangster movie. When we first meet him he plants an explosive in a mailbox and watches as it blows up. Why? Boredom.

You would think that with such an emphasis on character and environment there wouldn’t be much to the action scenes. But once again you would be wrong. Scorsese utilised hand held camera for quick movement and fights, moving the viewer’s vision nimbly through the continually erupting chaos. Despite the eloquence the fights retain their sense of grit and realism. The characters do not suddenly become expertly trained fighters, they are still young punks practising whatever fight moves they saw in a movie.

‘Mean Streets’ proved to be Scorsese’s first breakout success and what made that all the more remarkable was how miniscule its budget was. The actors involved had little experience and while it should be set in New York, most of it is shot on the disguised streets of L.A. In many ways that’s why it’s so brilliant, you never feel as if you’re watching actors or stages, you’re watching real life unfold right in front of you, life with all the pain, violence and tragedy.

Stylish, personal and thematic but also gritty, provocative and endlessly enthralling.

Result: 10/10

Talkin' Scorsese: Boxcar Bertha

"I'd just like to say...that this is a hold up."

Leave it to Scorsese to take what should, to all intents and purposes, been a cheap exploitation film and craft something as unique and deceptively deep as his second directorial feature ‘Boxcar Bertha’. Or at least that’s what it was trying to do, the only question is; did it succeed?

A loose adaptation of the story of Bertha Thompson (Barbara Hershey). Following the death of her father Bertha links up with a union organizer (David Carradine) and end up running afoul of the law. Set against the backdrop of the Great Depression they make their way across the country under a life of crime, doing whatever they can to survive.

In 1972 Roger Corman was the most successful exploitation producer in America, around this time he hired Scorsese, several actors and an entire film crew, sent them out into the heartland of America and was expecting to get another cheap, violent and quick film in return. But Scorsese had other idea and that shines through immediately in his direction.

There’s a much heavier emphasis on mood and atmosphere rather than purely on the action. Furthermore the violence was far from the entertaining and senseless violence that fans of the exploitation genre would be used to, there is a certain weight to each drop of blood and immoral action, almost as if he wants to use it to reflect the inner nature of his characters…

It is fascinating to watch these early effort from Scorsese, pictures in which he still hadn’t quite found his footing and was still experimenting to try and discover just what kind of filmmaker he was going to be. His debut ‘Who’s that Knocking on My Door’ and ‘Boxcar Bertha’ are the only real chances we get to see that because very soon he would tap into that formula and create his first masterpiece. But for now we have this.

There is definitely a weird sense of fascination to ‘Boxcar Bertha’. It seems fairly obvious that the director wasn’t fully invested within the project, by this point in his career the whispers of Johnny Boy and Charlie Cappa must have been circling around his mind. The project is very much an extension of the brief crime-wave-lover craze that permeated the early 1970s as a reaction to ‘Bonnie and Clyde’. While there were some legitimately amazing character studies like Terrance Malick’s ‘Badlands’ for the most part they were intended as nothing more than sex driven, violent escapades to try and attract a young audience.

It’s fair to assume that Scorsese used this as a launching pad, having struggled to find another project to direct four years after the release of his first feature he needed something to draw support for his next passion project so he took up the role of helming a seedy crime movie. But credit where it’s due you can’t accuse him of not putting effort into it. There are a number of impressive shots and concepts within it. As well as that one has to admire the way in which he undertook this exploitation picture and bent it to his own style and vision.

If anything that’s where you can criticise the movie because the director is most defiantly making a different film to everyone else. If anything it creates a rather disjointed feel to the film and the moments of directorial flare feel almost out of place. ‘Boxcar Bertha’ is also very poorly structured, there’s no sense of pacing or development and ultimately it comes across as somewhat episodic. It wanders form one set piece to another with no sense pf purpose or reason. One can argue that it’s supposed to reflect the aimlessness of Bertha’s career as a criminal, but with so little development or complexity to the characters then it’s difficult to support that.

One can’t blame Scorsese for taking what should have been a cheap throwaway script and try to inject a sense of depth and style to it, but there’s ultimately so little to back the film up that I continually get the impression that everyone’s talent it being wasted. The performances are fine for what they have to be, but the question is could they be better with a superior script? Could this entire film be better with a different script?

Fairly senseless if not sometimes innovative.

Result: 5/10

The Relatables: Dawn of Justice vs The Force Awakens

It’s been well over a year since I posted the last post of this segment. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the concept it was created out of my disdain and disappointment for both Ridley Scott’s ‘Exodus’ and Neil Blomkamp’s ‘Chappie’. I had been heavily anticipating both films and was ultimately let down by them so I tried to pinpoint exactly where they went wrong based on another film of a slightly similar nature by contrasting, comparing and analysing them both in tandem and trying to work out what one movie could have learned from the other.

As I said before I haven’t revisited the series in a while because there haven’t actually been that many films that would fit into this kind of analysis. There have still been disappointing movies, but few of them have had any attributes that can be contrasted with other, more successful films in their field. I was considering making one that compared ‘Terminator 5’ and J.J Abrams’ ‘Star Trek’ but frankly I didn’t want to have to think about that 2015 monstrosity any more than I had to.

‘Batman v Superman’ on the other hand is still a film that fascinates me. I didn’t like it at all but I can’t stop thinking about precisely why it turned out the way it did, and for such a heavily anticipated film that had spent so many years in development. It almost reminded me of another film that had been massively (that’s still too small a word) anticipated, ‘The Force Awakens’. Consider the similarities, both were speculated on and discussed from the moment the idea was pitched to the moment the film first appeared on a cinema screen. Both had to reunite fans that had been divided by previous movies (the prequels and ‘Man of Steel’) and establish a whole new franchise for a new generation. But when it comes to the critical consensus one is rated at 93% on Rotten Tomatoes while the other sits at 29%. So what happened, and what could one learn from the other?

Even before the actual release of each film there’s a comparison to make; the marketing. When you look at each trailer for ‘The Force Awakens’ it’s one of the best examples of how to sell a movie without giving the plot away. Each trailer worked to established the movie’s tone, character, style while it fuelled speculation and still kept the plot intact.

As for ‘Batman v Superman’ well that first teaser trailer had the unfortunate fate of being leaked and subsequently released the same week as Han Solo first uttered “Chewie, we’re home” and was heavily criticised for its sombre and seemingly joyless tone. Anyone who was nervous that ‘Man of Steel’s’ bleakness would carry over to this was proven right. Then the SDCC trailer redeemed all of that, it was epic, stylish, full of jaw dropping moments and actually got us excited (rightfully so) for Ben Affleck’s Batman. But then we got another trailer and wow, did that one burst the bubble. Never mind that it was essentially the film’s entire plot in just over two minutes but looking at how uncoordinated, inconsistent, awkwardly paced and poorly composited as well as the fact that it served to undermine the movie’s entire premise and title (the last shot depicts Batman and Superman working together, as in not fighting, and then the title comes up as ‘Batman v Superman’, who thought that was a good idea). The third trailer was a significant improvement but the damage had already been done.

But what about the actual movies? When you look at ‘The Force Awakens’ again you realise more and more how solidly constructed it is as a singular film, one that set out to reinvigorate the franchise and create a platform from which to build upon. It knew what it wanted to be, a grand space opera that harkened back to George Lucas’ 1977 film that first captured our imaginations. ‘Batman v Superman’ on the other hand was unsure of whether to be a Justice League prequel or a film about the ideological conflict between Batman and Superman. It decided to be both and ultimately became neither. In many ways, the simplicity of ‘The Force Awakens’ is where it stands strongest. There are too many unnecessary scenes and plot holes within ‘Dawn of Justice’ for me to list here, and so many scenes that serve no purpose other than setting up future movies.

As well as that ‘The Force Awakens’ stuck true to its source material while introducing new elements. It understood the tone of the ‘Star Wars’ universe, the characters that inhabited it and stayed within the realm of its own possibilities. ‘Batman v Superman’ on the other hand strayed somewhere between pandering to its fans and completely misunderstanding the characters. It pandered by inserting needless references to Aquaman, the Flash, Cyborg, Darkseid, Doomsday and all before shoehorning in the famous Death of Superman storyline. As for all of the visual call backs to ‘The Dark Knight Returns’ maybe Snyder should have paid more attention to the panel in which Batman breaks a gun in half and declares that “this is the weapon of the enemy, we do not need it, we will not use it” or when he states that a “a gun is a coward’s weapon, a liar’s weapon”. These new additions that are made to the story are inherently against the core philosophies of each character.

Ultimately one can also look to the way in which J.J Abrams and Zack Snyder work as directors. People defend Snyder by stating that he is more of a visual storyteller, but observe the introduction to Rey’s character, executed almost entirely without dialogue. That is visual storytelling and it’s not there to look cool or move the plot forward, it’s simply a short amount of time devoted to building and introducing a character, creating an environment and immersing us within the films atmosphere. Snyder only uses shots because they are cool, let’s face it the only reason we saw another version of Bruce Wayne’s parents being shot is because Snyder liked the idea of pearls falling in slow motion.

In fact that acts as a good link to another vital aspect. When Abrams shot ‘The Force Awakens’ he knew that this movie had to be as accessible as possible so he sought not to drown it in his own directorial trademarks, they were peppered throughout (there were a few lens flares of course) to give the impression that he had brought his own unique style, but not too many that the film no longer feels rooted in the franchise. On the flip side, this is quite possibly the most Snydery film ever, with so many redundant slow motion shots and CGI enhanced set pieces to the point at which it became laughable. I actually started laughing out loud whenever it reverted to slow motion.

But going back to that point of alienating your audience. ‘The Force Awakens’ did a great job at being accessible to all audiences. I honestly know a number of people whose only experience with ‘Star Wars’ comes from ‘The Force Awakens’ and they enjoyed it very much (I admit I don’t have any way to prove it so you’ll just have to take my word for it) but a for people I don’t know then how about BBC film critic Mark Kermode who admitted prior to his review that he had never been part of the ‘Star Wars’ fandom but found himself completely engrossed by ‘The Force Awakens’ only to find ‘Batman v Superman’ incomprehensible.

I’d say ‘The Force Awakens’ was able to reach a much wider audience as well. Now, to a certain generation Han Solo will always be the wise mentor just as Obi-Wan was for another. ‘The Force Awakens’ was fun enough be enjoyed as simple entertainment, an achievement in filmmaking or a brilliant continuation of the saga. As I’ve said before ‘Dawn of Justice’ as too melancholic and miserable to be entertaining, too poorly constructed to be a filmmaking achievement and too inaccurate to be enjoyed as an adaptation.

I really want to stress the idea of fun though. I’m not saying that you can’t have dark and complex blockbusters (‘The Dark Knight’ for example, or ‘Empire Strikes Back’) but they succeed by firstly establishing a tone that is consistently dark, as opposed to Snyder who seems to mistake it for murkiness, and they are tightly constructed films. A sprawling mess like ‘Dawn of Justice’ is not tightly constructed and is also not much fun, so as a result it’s much easier to see its shortcomings. Is ‘The Force Awakens’ a perfect movie? No, but I became so engrossed and involved within the film and has such a good time watching it that its shortcomings ultimately don’t bother me that much, because of how fun it was.

Another thing that ‘The Force Awakens’ did well was the way it restrained itself. Think about what you had in ‘Batman v Superman’, two of Superman’s most iconic villains in one movie as well as a giant sign to indicate where the third one was, we also had Wonder Woman for no reason, as well as cameos from the Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman as well as dozens of obscure characters like Jimmy Olson, Mercy Graves and Vicky Vale not to mention cramming in storylines from ‘The Dark Knight Returns’, ‘Injustice’, ‘Justice League 52’, ‘Batman: Hush’, and ‘The Death of Superman’. It comes across as less of a cohesive film and more an attempt by DC to throw as much as they possibly can at the wall to draw audiences and use their reaction to see what sticks. It’s ironic because I criticised the movie for being too focussed on where it’s going rather than what it’s doing, but at the same time DC seem to have no idea where exactly they want to go. ‘Star Wars’ on the other hand seems to have a good idea of what lies ahead and this shows by how they didn’t throw everything at ‘The Force Awakens’ like how they held off on Luke Skywalker right to the very end.

As well as that I would say there’s a difference between leaving an open ended story from which to expand upon and just not bothering to finish storylines because it’s easier to end them in a sequel. Can you guess which film did which? People have called the ending of ‘The Force Awakens’ a cliff-hanger but I think that implies that there’s some kind of immediate danger. Instead we’re not worried about Rey at this moment, we are intrigued to see where her journey will take her, and in fact the same could be said for every character. I mean who doesn’t want to know what happened to Kanjiclub right (obscure references).

I know I’ve praised the hell out of ‘The Force Awakens’ but as I’ve said before don’t think it’s a perfect film, there are issues. But the rest of it is so brilliant, and entertaining and true to what ‘Star Wars’ should be that I always end up loving it. My reaction to ‘Batman v Superman’ is in fact the exact opposite. I know I’ve talked a lot of shit about it and I don’t think it’s a terrible film, there is some good stuff. But the rest of it is so poorly made, miserable and inaccurate that I’ll always end up disliking it.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story - Trailer Review

"What will you do when they catch you, what will you do when they break you. If you continue to fight, what will you become?"

Less just over four months after the release of the last ‘Star Wars’ film and mere days after its Blu-Ray release we are treated to a new teaser trailer for the next instalment of the franchise. It’s a pretty great time to be alive isn’t it? Unless you hate ‘Star Wars’ but in which case why are you reading this anyway?

During one of his many interviews concerning his appointment to direct the first ‘Star Wars’ anthology movie, Gareth Edwards discussed the production teams he had hired to shoot the movie, teams that had worked on films like ‘Saving Private Ryan’ and ‘Black Hawk Down’. The interviewer stated that the production of this film seemed to closely resemble a war movie, wo which Edwards replied “Well it’s ‘Star Wars isn’t it?”.

That is the exact vibe I get from this teaser, ‘Rogue One’ instantly resembles a war movie. Not because of mass violence or bloodshed (that obviously won’t be found in the movie) but because it captured what is frequently referred to as the soldier’s perspective. Ground level action, oriented around a chaotic environment using mostly hand held cameras. I mean just look at that second to last shot alone as Rebel soldiers run frantically across an unknown beach, blaster fire on all sides, bodies flying through the air, the looming AT-AT walkers right ahead of them. It feels like something out of ‘Saving Private Ryan’, saturated in the elements of ‘Star Wars’.

That shot also harkens back to Gareth Edwards talent for scale. One of the things I admired the most about his ‘Godzilla’ remake was the way in which he gave such a sense of size, scope and weight to the monster and he did the same thing in his micro-budget debut ‘Monsters’ and it’s the same thing here in this shot. Another place in which it is visible is the slow reveal of the Death Star, clearly under the final stages of its construction, menacingly dwarfing a group of Star Destroyers. In fact those Star Destroyers on their own are fantastic, the CGI is absolutely implacable and completely indistinguishable from the real models used in the original trilogy.

In fact this whole trailer made the film look as if it will aesthetically resemble the 1977 movie even more so than ‘The Force Awakens’ did (which makes sense as this film takes place much closer to the era in which ‘A New Hope’ was set). The scenery is so incredibly detailed and so perfectly fits in with the world that was first established nearly forty years ago. I particularly enjoyed the use of the Death Star’s siren as a metronome, a constant reminder of what lies at stake and the ever present danger in this world. The fact that this trailer contains no Jedi, no force and no Lightsabres indicates that this may be a departure from the mystical side of ‘Star Wars’, a more brutal affair than what we are used to. Which is frankly brilliant s it’s basically the purpose of these anthology films, to provide opportunities to tell stories that may not feel right as an official Episode but can still be set against the backdrop of this universe.

A number of brief character introductions instantly peaked my curiosity such as Donnie Yen’s Samurai-like Rebel or Forrest Whitaker’s war weary veteran and especially Ben Mendelson’s Imperial … what, general? Inquisitor? Grand Admiral? I can’t wait to find out. But of all of them I was deeply impressed by the introduction to Felicity Jones’ character Jyn Erso. Sadly some less than educated folk have already complained about the fact that a ‘Star Wars’ movie is set to debut its second female lead (god forbid a ‘Star Wars’ movie have a strong female character!). Honestly though there are currently seven films in this franchise and when you think about the gender ratio of each lead it currently stands at 6 to 1, I think we can afford to have another.

But even without that factor I still don’t care because she just seems like a highly interesting character. Whereas Rey came from humble origins Jyn appears to be more of a loose cannon and somewhat morally ambiguous. Then at the end we see her in Imperial armour, so what does that mean? Is it part of her infiltration of the Empire of behalf of the Rebel Alliance or does she actually end up betraying our group of heroes? It’s fun to be able to speculate again isn’t it?

Victoria

"One girl. One city. One night. One take."

Since mid-2015 there have been whispers around the indie film circuit of a movie filmed entirely in one take. Where previous movies have attempted to create the illusion of the whole story being executed in a single tracking shot this one actually did it for real, staging and filming the entire 138 minute feature in one continuous shot. It’s been quietly released across various territories and I’ve finally been able to see it.

Victoria (Laia Costa) is a Spanish girl who moved to Berlin three months earlier, works in a cafe for a meagre wage, does not speak German and does not know anybody in the new city. Leaving a club at around 4 o'clock in the morning after a night of dancing and drinking, she meets four young men and joins them as their wild night of partying escalates into a bank robbery.

The technical prowess of ‘Victoria’ cannot be emphasised enough. Anyone who knows anything about filmmaking will know that the concept of executing an idea this gargantuan is almost mind numbingly daunting. What makes it more remarkable is how ‘Victoria’ tries very hard to not let its technical aspects limit it. It would have been so easy to just write a film with a minimalistic plot and setting, restrict the run time to as little as 80 minutes and simply film that as a single shot. But instead ‘Victoria’ is an active movie, with various changes in scenery and a runtime that verges on two hours and twenty minutes. This is a long film, packed with vibrancy and energy to such an extent that its technological execution continues to astound me.

Director Sebastian Schipper rehearsed this film multiple times and even then it took the cast and crew three run through to finally nail the film in its entirety. He had many alternative solutions should this massive concept inevitably fall through and was apparently prepared to shoot the film in a more conventional style if all else failed. But amazingly he somehow succeeded and even more remarkably the end result is actually has a cohesive narrative with engaging characters, something that certain films with all the time in the world and as many editing techniques they need still can’t convey.

One more time, there are no cheats here. There is trickery in staging film in this method. From start to finish it is a real camera tracking real actors through the real world. A principle concern might be that while the technique is impressive, after a while it may wear thin, become monotonous or uninventive but amazingly Schipper is able to employ multiple techniques to ensure that the actual movement of the camera is varied and engrossing. Certain conversations are filmed as intimate close-ups that provide us with an insight into the characters inner emotions, but the film also becomes hectic and panicked as well as fluid and jubilant when it needs to. It is often thought that editing is essential to accurately convey a character’s emotions to the screen but Schnipper, for the most part, uses these various techniques to convey these emotions without ever resorting to editing. Sturla Brandth Grovlen’s excellent cinematography is also crucial in to creating this impression.

But I’ve talked about the technical aspects enough, what about the actors? Well in all honesty Laia Costa, in the lead role, could rival the technical aspects of ‘Victoria’ as being the best thing about the film. With no editing she has to bring forward every thought process and hidden emotion to life through the subtlest of movements, the tiniest of glances and such an honest embodiment of what the character is feeling. Her performance is somewhat dictated by the structure of the movie, but she does such an excellent job that it’s hard to criticise it merely for that. The supporting cast are also impressive but frankly they don’t really need to be (well they do kind of but let me finish) as Victoria herself is the observer to an insane world, a mirror from which we can view the situation, if her emotions are clear the rest of the film falls into place around it.

Or at least it does for most of the time. Despite being enthralling the pace of ‘Victoria’ starts to sag somewhat at the 100 minute mark and never really runs with the same speed as it did for the first two acts. At the same time certain plot points and character motivations do feel as if they were too heavily influenced by the format, forced to be restrictive due to the technical side of the movie. But regardless it doesn’t detract too much from the more admirable aspects.

Technologically masterful and narratively engaging. ‘Victoria’ is pure filmmaking.

Result: 8/10

10 Cloverfield Lane

"There's been an attack, not sure yet if it's chemical or nuclear. But down here you're safe."

There has been a great deal of confusion surrounding this movie. Namely, people seem to be unable to comprehend what J.J Abrams means when he says “spiritual sequel”. I think an easier way to process what this movie means is to think of the ‘Cloverfield’ as the modern version of ‘The Twilight Zone’ a series of different horror stories all united under a common banner to attract audiences. So far the brand has given us a found footage disaster kind of horror movie, and now it’s offering a psychological kind of horror instead.

When Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) crashes her car and loses consciousness she wakes up in an underground bunker with just two people for company. One of them (John Goodman) tells her that she has been taken there for her own safety, as protection from the disaster outside. Is he her saviour or her captor?

I almost forgot what it was like to experience a film that managed to keep me guessing for its entirety, to be so wrapped up in the characters and their plight that my mind doesn’t quite have time to think about it as a movie, to just view the situation and look for clues within the surroundings to try and deduce exactly what is happening. ’10 Cloverfield Lane’ does that superbly. I can safely say that I was on the edge of my seat for the entire runtime, the tension was excruciating but at the same time endlessly intriguing.

I think a lot of this lies with the direction of Dan Trachtenberg who, in his first feature film, uses the limited space to create such an atmosphere of suspense and mystery. It permeates almost every moment of the film and rarely lets up, even in the movie’s quitter moments there is something eerily unsettling just in the way that the camera moves and what it chooses to show us. But one can also attribute this atmosphere to the writers, one of which is Damien Chazelle (who is making a real name for himself as a horror writer with ‘The Witch’ as well as this, and even outside of the genre he excels because it’s one year later and I’m still thinking about ‘Whiplash’). Their script is what allows Trachtenberg’s direction to play with our forced perspectives and make us fear what we don’t know.

But what’s even more remarkable is that even in the tight confines of the bunker there is a game of cat and mouse that persists throughout the entire film.  The character dynamic allows for some terrific moments of tension and suspense as each one tries to deduce exactly what the other person knows, and what they think they know. For example Michelle is obviously suspicious that her rescuer is lying to her but should she let him know that his reaction could be even worse, so she must nurse her suspicions under a blanket of secrecy and all the while we observe Goodman, waiting to see if this is a façade or the reality of the situation.

The only problem with observing Goodman is that it’s frighteningly difficult to deduce what his true motives are. The reason is because Goodman is absolutely fantastic in this movie. His performance is a masterclass in misdirection, tiptoeing the line between insane or simply someone that enjoys control. Inevitable questions start to build up and you can’t help but urge Michelle to discover the truth. It’s the kind of performance that makes your skin crawl and unease’s you from the moment he appears on screen. Winstead is able to match him in almost every scene together, though her performance doesn’t have quite as many subtle nuances as Goodman’s it’s not really within the perimeters of her character, nervous twitches and moral ambiguity wouldn’t suit her role as protagonist. Unlike a lot of movies in this genre our main character is not an idiot, she goes about her situation logically and with actual thought. It makes it easier to root for her.

The last half an hour is something I still haven’t fully decided upon. I don’t even know what I can say here because to all intents and purposes this film works better the less you know going into it. I would never say the ending derails the film but is it executed in the best possible way to make it believable? There’s still the same sense of logic and commitment behind each act and each plot point and ultimately I’m fine with it, but I suspect not everyone will be.

Taught, intelligent and endlessly suspenseful.

Result: 8/10

Best and Worst of March 2016

It’s been quite a month, one of surprises, shocks and upsets. There was a lot of variation both in genre and quality. For example we had two horror movies that acted as bookends to the scale of modern horror, with one being terrible and formulaic and the other being innovative and ground breaking. At the same time we’ve also seen a great comedy and one movie that just defied all logical categorisation, but more on those later. The sad truth is that while there were some glimmers of greatness, March 2016 has been a month of disappointment. It started with the release of the horrific ‘Ghostbusters’ trailer, Terrance Malick failed to astound me and Zack Snyder managed to sink an entire franchise (don’t be surprised if in a year’s time we’re seeing trailers for ‘The Flash: Days of Future Past’ as they try to pull the time travel reboot trick).

It’s also been a month of conflict as critics have had to battle directors calling them out for not liking their terrible movies, audiences who have become desensitised to what constitutes a good horror movie, others who were somehow disappointed that the Coen’s had made a sprawling ensemble comedy that relied more on great characters than a contrived plot (because ‘The Big Lebowski’ and ‘Burn After Reading’ were nothing like that, apart from in every way) and the never ending pile of DC fans accusing us of being paid out by Marvel. Yes you caught us out, just the other day I had lunch with Kevin Fiege, Russo Brothers, Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr and we all laughed at how we had doomed what was obviously the greatest movie ever made by writing inaccurate reviews of it(!) But anyway, here are the best three movies of the month.

3: Hail, Caesar

The Coen’s have managed to craft a film that is just as much of a loving homage to the Golden Age of Hollywood as it is a sharp satirical view of it. It’s wonderfully intelligent while also gleefully ludicrous and ever cast member turns in a star performance, from Josh Brolin’s sacrificial fixer to Alden Ehrenreich as an inept musical cowboy attempting to make it as a dramatic actor. Paired with Roger Deakens once more, the Coen’s stage their epic escapade in such a beautiful manner that it’s hard not to be swept up in the glitz and glamour of classic Hollywood.

2: The Witch

Here I was worrying that horror filmmaking had forgotten how to stage atmospheric environments. ‘The Witch’ creates an impermeable eeriness that gradually rises in tension as the movie proceeds, creating a genuine sense of terror and suspense. It’s less of a story about ghosts and ghouls but more of depression and isolation as a puritan family tears itself apart. Excellently performed, beautifully shot and so skilfully unnerving that it almost makes me forget the twenty other terrible horror movies that I had to sit through in order to discover this gem.  

1: High Rise

It’s tough to say what Stanley Kubrick would be doing if he were alive today and I don’t want to overreach myself but I feel as if he would be making films like ‘High Rise’. Ben Wheatley’s trippy science fiction thriller takes a 1975 novel that was once deemed unfilmable and not only adapts it faithfully (mostly) but makes it disturbingly relevant. That’s what ultimately makes it so frightening, not the ultra-violence, eerie atmosphere, or its sadistic, destructive and hallucinogenic nature. What make ‘High Rise’ frightening is just how insightful it is, it glimpses the future by looking into the past.

And the worst…

The Other Side of the Door

There were a lot of contenders of this month’s worst movie (expect to see some of them on the end of the year list) like ‘Gods of Egypt’ and ‘The Divergent Series: Allegiant’ but neither of them compared to the lazy, overly familiar, terribly written, nonsensical guide to making a horrifically bad horror film.  

But I’m not done yet, for one month only there’s the biggest disappointment award. And that goes to…

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Normally I wouldn’t care but I’ve seen such an outpouring of fans trying to defend this movie, and ordinarily that would be fine but I think there’s a line between defending your own opinion and attacking someone else’s. Fans seem to take it upon themselves to insult the integrity of any critic that dares disagree with them, great critics like Matt Zoller Sietz, John Schnepp, Mark Kermode Kristian Harloff, Mark Ellis, Alicia Malone, Scott Mantz, A.O Scott, Chris Stuckmann and Jeremy Jahns have all received some kind of hate because people can’t stand the idea of anyone disagreeing with them. Now I’m saying enough, and I’m going to once again say exactly what I thought of this movie.

I’ve hated every one of Zack Snyder’s films, but this one above all the other is the one that I just cannot understand how anyone could overlook its problems. I’ve seen dozens of people trying to defend the movie, accusing all its criticisers of being Marvel fanboys, saying that the movie is “just for comic boom fans”, “it’s too complex for average moviegoers” or “it’s just mindless fun, don’t nitpick”.

But is it really any of those things? For me it was too dark, depressing and boring to be viewed as mindless fun, too unfaithful and inaccurate to be enjoyed as a comic book adaptation (as Kevin Smith said “Zack Snyder didn’t read a bunch of comics, he read one comic once, and it was Dark Knight Returns, and his favourite part was the last part where Batman and Superman fight”) and too poorly written, badly structured and nonsensical to be appreciated as a well made film. There are some good moments but they seem to be lost in a sea of wasted opportunities and non-cohesive storytelling.